<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (12) TMI 574 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104445</link>
    <description>Rule 47-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 confines form XVIII-A to dealers, as the form itself requires dealer particulars and a registered dealer declaration. It cannot be issued to transporters, and a concession by counsel that contradicted the statutory scheme could not lawfully support the earlier direction. An order founded on such an unauthorized concession was therefore liable to be recalled, and the direction dated 3 March 1997 was correctly recalled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 574 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104445</link>
      <description>Rule 47-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 confines form XVIII-A to dealers, as the form itself requires dealer particulars and a registered dealer declaration. It cannot be issued to transporters, and a concession by counsel that contradicted the statutory scheme could not lawfully support the earlier direction. An order founded on such an unauthorized concession was therefore liable to be recalled, and the direction dated 3 March 1997 was correctly recalled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>